Where this argument falls down is that the slave masters go through basically the same education system. If you drop out of that system there's always the danger of becoming an ignorant chav, so it's best to get an education and then make your choices.

Sure. One can go through the same educational system. But if that individual has a wealthy family, a wealthy family that just so happens to be established in industry, then that individual could simply graduate high school with the minimum credits and STILL be extremely successful. They still have access to the wealth. They are still in the wealthy family. They still have all the prominent associations. Yeah, they barely graduated and didn't even take a statistics class, but they are still who they are.

Max

Where this argument falls down is that the slave masters go through basically the same education system. If you drop out of that system there's always the danger of becoming an ignorant chav, so it's best to get an education and then make your choices.

Sure. One can go through the same educational system. But if that individual has a wealthy family, a wealthy family that just so happens to be established in industry, then that individual could simply graduate high school with the minimum credits and STILL be extremely successful. They still have access to the wealth. They are still in the wealthy family. They still have all the prominent associations. Yeah, they barely graduated and didn't even take a statistics class, but they are still who they are.

So you're suggesting that without connections it is literally impossible to get ahead and with connections you can be a total f*ck up and still be wildly successful?

This all strikes me as a series of 'intellectual' excuses as to why you've not made a success of yourself or cannot visualise a successful future. You've therefore constructed this notion of a global social system designed to keep guys like you down and have given up trying to make your way in the world in ways which you now deem to be 'controlled'. The chip on your shoulder is remarkable.

hflgk

Where this argument falls down is that the slave masters go through basically the same education system. If you drop out of that system there's always the danger of becoming an ignorant chav, so it's best to get an education and then make your choices.

Sure. One can go through the same educational system. But if that individual has a wealthy family, a wealthy family that just so happens to be established in industry, then that individual could simply graduate high school with the minimum credits and STILL be extremely successful. They still have access to the wealth. They are still in the wealthy family. They still have all the prominent associations. Yeah, they barely graduated and didn't even take a statistics class, but they are still who they are.

So you're suggesting that without connections it is literally impossible to get ahead and with connections you can be a total f*ck up and still be wildly successful?

This all strikes me as a series of 'intellectual' excuses as to why you've not made a success of yourself or cannot visualise a successful future. You've therefore constructed this notion of a global social system designed to keep guys like you down and have given up trying to make your way in the world in ways which you now deem to be 'controlled'. The chip on your shoulder is remarkable.

I am as much of a success as this society has allowed me to be. I am not self sufficient. For that I am ashamed. I must rely on others for almost every aspect of life. Because as a whole, humanity wants too much. I have sacrificed my autonomy for greed.

hflgk

How is measurable physical fitness a 'construct of society'? Regardless of what Brand they wear.

Humans are artificially modifying their bodies to look unnatural. This unnatural look is now becoming natural. Breast implants, penis pills and surgeries, face lifts, I can go on. This is artificial enhancement. It is leading to artificial expectation.

Max

How is measurable physical fitness a 'construct of society'? Regardless of what Brand they wear.

Humans are artificially modifying their bodies to look unnatural. This unnatural look is now becoming natural. Breast implants, penis pills and surgeries, face lifts, I can go on. This is artificial enhancement. It is leading to artificial expectation.

hflgk

By claiming your subjective opinion is "truth", for one. By failing of substantiate any of your hypotheses in a meaningful way. By resorting to logical fallacies, and generalising from made-up evidence.

Yes, you are the hypocrite. Other people have allowed their intelligence and knowledge to be seen in the quality of their responses. If you interpret this as them demonstrating intellectual superiority then that says q great deal more about your perception of your own intellect than it does about their actions.

At least none of them started their response with an overt statement claiming everything they said was factual and without flaw.

I never said my statements were "without flaw"... you did. I also stated that the "truth warning" phrase in my original post was a bit of a joke. Go back and look for yourself, I stated this a couple weeks ago.

And are you an aspiring psychologist? Maybe you should look into taking some courses (joke).

hflgk

How is measurable physical fitness a 'construct of society'? Regardless of what Brand they wear.

Humans are artificially modifying their bodies to look unnatural. This unnatural look is now becoming natural. Breast implants, penis pills and surgeries, face lifts, I can go on. This is artificial enhancement. It is leading to artificial expectation.

Well that has literally nothing to do with what I asked.

How is measurable physical fitness a 'construct of society'? Regardless of what Brand they wear.

I never said physical fitness was a construct of society. Artificially modifying the body to achieve an "accepted" look is.

hflgk

I wonder if this guy will exchange a wife, a decent education and work with a 401K for the scars on his back.

"Mis-education is a form of slavery"

Yes. This image reveals the results of slavery. But not modern slavery. Slavery is simply the circumstance of having to succumb to superior influences. We experience this today. It is called society. It is called "keeping up with the Jones's". Call it what you may. We may not receive lashings, but we receive fines, imprisonment and other consequences. Actually, some still receive modern-day lashings -- in the form of beatings from law enforcement officers and the like.

Besides... like most, you seem to be focused on only the physical apsects of slavery. Not mental. In today's society, if one does not keep up with all the current petty trends -- clothing, vehicles, housing, technological possessions, etc., they are viewed as inadequate. As sub standard. Imagine the impact this has on one's emotions and mental health. One must continue running on the proverbial rat-wheel to earn money to keep up with all the new exciting trends. Or they are usually cast aside as inadequate. Basically, succumb to the superficiality or be thrown under the bus as a loser or as unwanted trash. "You are not good enough without these objects. You are inadequate without these things." It's a mindjob.

And anyway, despite all this awesome advancement and progression, people still slowly decay and die. People still experience pain, sorrow and depression. Even with all the pharmaceuticals on the market. Even with all the advancement.

We aren't happy with what we have. Will we ever be?

look man, speak for yourself.

I mean, who are you speaking for?

you don't represent mankind.

the tone of this whole topic (read: every post you make) is very telling. it's crying out for depression.

for whatever reason you appear to be a relatively sad and/or frustrated person. it's just oozing out of your words and attitude.

but seriously; speak for yourself.

I can't believe people have been honestly "debating" with you point-for-point. everything you type reeks of self-absorbed, pseudo-intellectual, and above-all-else pretentious horsesh*t. you have no special insight and your "philosophy" of life is not the least bit revelatory.

This isn't my "philosophy of life". This is partially my view of society.

People aren't happy with what they have. This is why they always seek improvement. This is why they sought improvement to begin with. Sure. People are happy with the iPhone for a few months. But then they expect an upgraded model just around the corner. People act as if life isn't worth living unless something is always improved or upgraded.

I'll speak for myself when I can live for myself. When I can live without submersing myself into a society plagued by materialistic addiction just to earn money to exhibit my own symptoms of this disease. I'll speak for myself when expectations of societal contribution are removed. I'll speak for myself when I can exist for myself.

I'm not "crying out for depression". I'm expressing a view. If you would rather misrepresent my view as depression, so be it. Continue to ignore the actual message and cast it aside as depressed drivel as most have.

And to add to this...

We must be herded together, concentrated into big groups, to facilitate and sustain current societal endeavors and products -- technologies, goods, etc. To submerse oneself into this society is to submerse oneself into all other people's problems and judgements. People are rude. People are disrespectful. People are selfish. But that's okay, because I understand why they are or at least can be. But this is unavoidable. And it shouldn't be. This may be the biggest problem.

To be in the middle of society is to be in the middle of problems on top of more problems surrounded by other problems. I don't want to be judged every time I go to the store to get a loaf of bread or cereal. I don't want to be mentally analyzed by the cashier when I pay for my gasoline. I don't want to be held up to or compared to outrageously high, artificial expectations and standards. I don't want to have to deal with other people's problems, insecurities, wants and analytics. I don't want to have to deal with other people's disrespect, selfishness or inconsideration. But yet in this society you have no choice. You are forced to rely on others for almost everything in life. You are forced to go out into society to acquire anything as a means of survival. And since this is so, you are forced to experience and endure other people's problems, judgements and disrespectful attitudes.

And of course this really can't be changed unless we impose even more control and influence over the individual. Such as reducing bullying so students and children aren't harassed. More supervision and control must be imposed to reduce bullying, disrespect, etc. I hope some of you can see where this is headed.

So what you're saying is that your perception of violence is worse, not that the violence itself is? Isn't that logically akin to claiming that crime is getting worse when the statistics show it better? Seems pretty disingenuous to me.

Armed forces aren't a new phenomenon, either. In fact the number of individuals involved directly in the armed forces in most nations as a proportion of population is reducing.

I believe the violence is worse. In part due to the reasons I gave above. But also due to technology. We have more powerful weapons. Individuals are capable of causing more harm. More weapons are available. Guns are everywhere. The potential for violence is great.

My main point is: we have massive outfits geared toward nothing but war. Massive, technological outfits designed for maximum defense AND offense. Pre-calculated, essentially pre-meditated purveyors of war. Cavemen didn't have that.

So it's a question of what you feel, rather than what the evidence suggests? Isn't that basically just an article of faith? Also, capability is not an indicator of intent or actuality. The great warring states of the modern age have had access to weapons capable of bringing about the demise of humanity yet they've never been used, why is that,? Because a weapon employed for the purposes of deterrence has more strategic value as a deterrent than as a weapon. Even the worst and least competent leaders of the modern age have accepted the sword of Damocles which is highly destructive capability. The more you threaten its use, the more likely you are to be consumed by it.

Bottom line: These weapons exist. These outfits designed solely for war exist. They are larger and more advanced than ever before (according to recorded history). People dedicate time and money to build and arrange these. Some people's lifelong careers are in these fields. Humans are wasting much time, energy and money to build these things. Humans ARE threatening each other with these things. Remember Korea? Remember the supposed biological weapons used overseas not too many weeks ago? Remember Mr. Kerry's dialogue, which was aired on t.v.? Recall that the U.S. became involved in these things because others threatened to use and/or did use some of these weapons? It's a big, ongoing global brawl. And the only real way to deal with this predicament is to compromise America's sovereign status.

To use your own example, look at nuclear weapons. The advances created by nuclear weapon development, derived directly from the Manhattan Project, have led to the development of nuclear medicine which saves tens of thousands of lives every year. The legacy of the detonation of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has, in human terms, been nothing but beneficial for society.

There's no military technology which cannot be used for good. Even military technologies used for harm, like the development of unmanned aircraft, stealth technology and stand-off munitions are in the global balance of the world less harmful purely because they are designed to minimise the threat posed to their operators. Similarly the modern transition towards very small warheads in stand-off munitions and precision targeted attacks has resulted in a level of collateral damage dramatically below that of comparable weapons. What people seem to fail to understand when discussing the impact of tactical innovation in weaponry is that these innovations are having a net positive effect. All else being the same, they're ensuring less people are killed or seriously wounded than would be otherwise.

Just look at Afghanistan compared to something like the drug was in Mexico. Five times as many people have been killed in the brutal close-quarters and largely indiscriminate conflict in Mexico, in 6 years, as died in the largely stand-off technology driven, heavily targeted conflict in Afghanistan, in 12.

Also stop f*cking multiple posting of you're going to get banned sharpish. There's an edit button for a reason, use it.

hflgk

However, would parents even prefer their daughters be "pretty", or their sons athletic if it weren't for societal pressures?

You can only blame society for so much before the blame falls at the feet of the individual. And the sad fact is that too often those of us on the left wing of the political spectrum lionise the working classes whilst overlooking their rampant bigotry and medieval values system.

Consider how many resources are open to us, whether you be a factory worker or a street cleaner, consider how many outlets there are which show us the fallacy of gender roles, homophobia and other beloved prejudices which refuse to die.

Then have a five minute talk with the average worker bee, and see just how quickly they blame every f*cking problem on immigrants, gays, gay immigrants and anyone with a different skin colour.

It's not society that creates this bigotry, it's not the education system which ingrains it, it's them, it's just them.They're bad people, and they raise their sons to be stupid and their daughters to be weak.

They're ignorant and they wear it like a badge of honour, and I think it's time we stopped blaming ourselves when those around us refuse to better themselves.

You have some good points. But this concerns part of the actual problem. The individual is being eroded away by group-think, or societal influence. The majority sways or skews the view of the individual. The individual feels as though certain characteristics are necessities in our modern society. It causes the individual to feel powerless, useless, unless they adopt at least similar viewpoints and lifestyles. It is becoming harder and harder to be an individual with this mindset and environment. Societal pressures are now more imposing and influential.

hflgk

So what you're saying is that your perception of violence is worse, not that the violence itself is? Isn't that logically akin to claiming that crime is getting worse when the statistics show it better? Seems pretty disingenuous to me.

Armed forces aren't a new phenomenon, either. In fact the number of individuals involved directly in the armed forces in most nations as a proportion of population is reducing.

I believe the violence is worse. In part due to the reasons I gave above. But also due to technology. We have more powerful weapons. Individuals are capable of causing more harm. More weapons are available. Guns are everywhere. The potential for violence is great.

My main point is: we have massive outfits geared toward nothing but war. Massive, technological outfits designed for maximum defense AND offense. Pre-calculated, essentially pre-meditated purveyors of war. Cavemen didn't have that.

So it's a question of what you feel, rather than what the evidence suggests? Isn't that basically just an article of faith? Also, capability is not an indicator of intent or actuality. The great warring states of the modern age have had access to weapons capable of bringing about the demise of humanity yet they've never been used, why is that,? Because a weapon employed for the purposes of deterrence has more strategic value as a deterrent than as a weapon. Even the worst and least competent leaders of the modern age have accepted the sword of Damocles which is highly destructive capability. The more you threaten its use, the more likely you are to be consumed by it.

Bottom line: These weapons exist. These outfits designed solely for war exist. They are larger and more advanced than ever before (according to recorded history). People dedicate time and money to build and arrange these. Some people's lifelong careers are in these fields. Humans are wasting much time, energy and money to build these things. Humans ARE threatening each other with these things. Remember Korea? Remember the supposed biological weapons used overseas not too many weeks ago? Remember Mr. Kerry's dialogue, which was aired on t.v.? Recall that the U.S. became involved in these things because others threatened to use and/or did use some of these weapons? It's a big, ongoing global brawl. And the only real way to deal with this predicament is to compromise America's sovereign status.

To use your own example, look at nuclear weapons. The advances created by nuclear weapon development, derived directly from the Manhattan Project, have led to the development of nuclear medicine which saves tens of thousands of lives every year. The legacy of the detonation of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has, in human terms, been nothing but beneficial for society.

There's no military technology which cannot be used for good. Even military technologies used for harm, like the development of unmanned aircraft, stealth technology and stand-off munitions are in the global balance of the world less harmful purely because they are designed to minimise the threat posed to their operators. Similarly the modern transition towards very small warheads in stand-off munitions and precision targeted attacks has resulted in a level of collateral damage dramatically below that of comparable weapons. What people seem to fail to understand when discussing the impact of tactical innovation in weaponry is that these innovations are having a net positive effect. All else being the same, they're ensuring less people are killed or seriously wounded than would be otherwise.

Just look at Afghanistan compared to something like the drug was in Mexico. Five times as many people have been killed in the brutal close-quarters and largely indiscriminate conflict in Mexico, in 6 years, as died in the largely stand-off technology driven, heavily targeted conflict in Afghanistan, in 12.

Also stop f*cking multiple posting of you're going to get banned sharpish. There's an edit button for a reason, use it.

Dear Mr. forum Nazi,

I'll post as much as I wish. If I get banned, so be it.

"The legacy of the detonation of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has, in human terms, been nothing but beneficial for society." Ah, yes. Successfully creating war machines and weaponry is a constructive use of time. Intimidating and threatening people into conformity, adherence and allegiance is always healthy and beneficial.

And yes, certain medicines may have sprouted out from this nuclear experimentation, however, it isn't necessarily a solution or benefit. People still suffer and die. People just live longer. People that live to be 70 years and older don't really contribute to society. More things must be produced for more people living longer lives. That requires more contribution (work) from the others in society. It isn't necessarily a benefit or solution.

And you must realize, the drug wars also utilize advanced technologies, in the form of firearms and similar close-range weaponry. They also use GPS systems to track the drugs that are trafficked. Advanced technology does not only concern big nuclear warheads.

My point still stands. Modern society has constructed massive technological killing machines. More powerful and advanced than any others in recorded history. They exist. Nations already threaten and intimidate each other with them. The fact that they exist, and that so much time and effort has already been dedicated to developing them, implicates that at some point in time, they will probably be utilized. Either by the administrative entities overseeing them, or some rogue terrorist group who just so happened to gain access to them. And they won't be used just to intimidate or deter.

The problem is that your logic isn't borne out in reality. It's a case of fear-mongering, assuming that capability implies use, and fallacious reasoning via a slippery slope argument. It also doesn't actually make sense because the potential power of weaponry has actually decreased rather than increased over the last few decades. Megaton level nuclear weapons are almost unheard of now when in the 60s and 70s they were commonplace. Warhead sizes for munitions have decreased with the advent of precision guidance. Your argument is based not just on fallacy but on total fiction. Therefore the conclusions you draw just don't make any sense.

Nuclear warheads shrunk when inertial guidance advances meant they could hit tactically valuable targets instead of strategic ones. Conventional warheads have shrunk as precision guidance improved- during the Second World War the majority of high explosive bombs were over 1000lbs. This dropped down to around 750lbs during Vietnam, down to 500 or less in Desert Storm and now glide bombs have almost entirely been replaced with stand off munitions with warhead sizes in the tens rather than hundreds of pounds for everything but very specific purposes (attacking hardened C2 facilities, shipping ect). If you expect people to give your views the time of day the least you could do is enough basic background research into your own points to know whether they're bloody factual or not.

Otter

The fact that they exist, and that so much time and effort has already been dedicated to developing them, implicates that at some point in time, they will probably be utilized.

Real life doesn't play by the rules of 'Chekov's Gun,' though. Hell, neither does fiction.

The reason many of the killing machines were created has less to do with 'deterrant' or even their possible use in the future - nope, it's all for the contracts. The dockets. The metric f*cktons of cash spent on developing them.

As a side note, and you'll see again in the warning I gave you, please refrain from double posting, and try to be a little more selective with your quotes. It was a pain in the ass to excise his little chunk from your growing train on my iPad.

Well, well, it looks as if another slave has gained a pair of trousers and has something to trumpet about to the others. Am I alone in thinking this man is yet not but even neighingly a man at all? Nay, I say. Nay to your demands of technological enslavement. Neigh to your demands for my physical exertions, for like the horse I am a noble yet arrogant creature unless given the altruistic sugar cube of knowledge. And finally, nay to your sayings, for they are fed by the system of which I fundamentally find lame and evil in every sense of the word.

DJ Arrt

Education-true education, that is, is about as far from slavery as one can get. I'll agree to some extent that primary and secondary education serve the primary purpose of familiarising people enough with basic concepts to perform a functioning economic and societal role, but they also contribute to the development of very individual-centric interpretive analysis and comprehension which is the primary driving force behind voluntary education.

If discourse on independent learning and analysis was unified around the sole aim of creating subservient beings, then one would expect very little nuace or distinction in expression of views and analysis of hypotheses, but even the most cursory glance across the academic landscape highlights how utterly absurd this notion is. The mere existence of reputable competing political, economic and social theories from disparate and often contradictory schools of intellectual thought is insurmountable, undeniable proof that academia and by association tertiary/higher education are both voluntary and non-prescriptive.

Sure. You can have different views. You can even debate among those. But you still must pay taxes. You still must go to school (or your parents to court).
Education does not feed into a "individual-centric" lifestyle. Education teaches one to be a good consumer. It teaches one that it's okay to turn to others for every good you desire to possess. Earn x amount of money to purchase y product. Learn x material so you can produce y object in the factory for the boss.

Honestly, I do want to know, what's your political ideology, or at least, your closest one?

And yes, you have to pay taxes, we need police, fire departments, ambulances, armed forces, schools, etc. If my home is burning down, I want to be able to save it, if I have a heart attack, I want to have a quick response, etc.

Are you angry that you learn economics? Why is it a problem to rely on someone else to make something? That's how things get done.

I don't care about politics. They seem to be a waste of time. Besides. Politics usually imply meddling in someone else's business, and I'm against that myself.

Actually, we don't need any of that stuff. Life and existence are, and was, without all that you mentioned. And we still have problems. Many. We will still die. The ambulance, fire squad, etc, can't change that.

It is a problem relying on others (for nearly everything in life) because ultimately others aren't responsible for us. We tell ourselves we are self-sufficient. But we aren't.

It is a problem relying on others because others must be manipulated or conditioned to do these things. As I said in my original post, people don't really do these things voluntarily.. they do these things because of societal influence.

What's the point of all this? Why try to inform people of this if it doesn't matter? What's the point of living at home instead of the streets since it isn't necessary?

hflgk

The problem is that your logic isn't borne out in reality. It's a case of fear-mongering, assuming that capability implies use, and fallacious reasoning via a slippery slope argument. It also doesn't actually make sense because the potential power of weaponry has actually decreased rather than increased over the last few decades. Megaton level nuclear weapons are almost unheard of now when in the 60s and 70s they were commonplace. Warhead sizes for munitions have decreased with the advent of precision guidance. Your argument is based not just on fallacy but on total fiction. Therefore the conclusions you draw just don't make any sense.

Nuclear warheads shrunk when inertial guidance advances meant they could hit tactically valuable targets instead of strategic ones. Conventional warheads have shrunk as precision guidance improved- during the Second World War the majority of high explosive bombs were over 1000lbs. This dropped down to around 750lbs during Vietnam, down to 500 or less in Desert Storm and now glide bombs have almost entirely been replaced with stand off munitions with warhead sizes in the tens rather than hundreds of pounds for everything but very specific purposes (attacking hardened C2 facilities, shipping ect). If you expect people to give your views the time of day the least you could do is enough basic background research into your own points to know whether they're bloody factual or not.

I don't expect people to take my views seriously. They are all brainwashed slaves. Slaves to each other, and mindless addicts to materialism. Chirping away on Twitter to tell their friend Billy how great their nails look. Slapping chunks of metal together over top rubber hoops to score a piece of white-trash tail.

Sure, humans spent all this time making big bombs and assembling armies all for no use. All for no reason. Rational.

You can continue to argue all day, but it doesn't change the fact that you are a resource for society. A resource for me. Go to college and manage their healthcare. Go to college and build these people new computers. Go pluck your food off a shelf in an air-conditioned facility helpless servant.

The fact that they exist, and that so much time and effort has already been dedicated to developing them, implicates that at some point in time, they will probably be utilized.

Real life doesn't play by the rules of 'Chekov's Gun,' though. Hell, neither does fiction.

The reason many of the killing machines were created has less to do with 'deterrant' or even their possible use in the future - nope, it's all for the contracts. The dockets. The metric f*cktons of cash spent on developing them.

As a side note, and you'll see again in the warning I gave you, please refrain from double posting, and try to be a little more selective with your quotes. It was a pain in the ass to excise his little chunk from your growing train on my iPad.

Swallow my penis.

Why are we entertaining this cynical/psuedointellectual?

Because he doesn't think he is cynical/pseudointellectual. It's a debate on perception.

Wipe the boogers from your noses, kiddos. Have fun being a resource.

Ban ban ban, ban ban ban, me! Ban ban ban, ban ban ban, me!

Have fun with your techa nol-o-geeee!

Wouldn't it be great......... if we had machines that wiped our asses, I mean, so we wouldn't have to do that anymore! Awesome!

Max

Of course we're all a resource for our society. But it is not all give, give, give from ourselves, we take from that society too. Essentially we all contribute in some way or another to create a stable society, we make certain sacrifices of personal liberty, such as foregoing our right to murder anyone we dislike, in order that we too are protected from those who may dislike us. This is in essence, the social contract.

What is your alternative? Do you believe you could exist without the trappings of society?

hflgk

Of course we're all a resource for our society. But it is not all give, give, give from ourselves, we take from that society too. Essentially we all contribute in some way or another to create a stable society, we make certain sacrifices of personal liberty, such as foregoing our right to murder anyone we dislike, in order that we too are protected from those who may dislike us. This is in essence, the social contract.

What is your alternative? Do you believe you could exist without the trappings of society?

Jesus Christ, you again?

Who cares about give give give or take take take when you ultimately have no choice? Work job. Subject yourself into society. Put up with assholes. Earn money. Buy goods.

It's helplessness.

This is why people are ridiculed for not having jobs.... because others are helpless twits that cannot survive on their own.

My alternative is living in harmony with nature. As we were supposed to. But of course Adam and Eve wanted all this knowledge so they could be god themselves and thus got kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Now we're all f*cked.

I look forward to dying rough at a young age. But of course I don't believe in death either.

Great rebuttal, I particularly enjoy how it is both sexually aggressive yet homophobic. And we're the brainwashed idiots?

Homophobic? How would it be homophobic if I suggested doing such? What?